JUDGMENT Amar Dutt, J. - Sat Narain and Siri Bhagwan were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat for offences under Sections 449, 120-B and 301 Indian Penal Code and acquitted vide judgment dated 7.11.1994. 2. State of Haryana is aggrieved by the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat and has come up in appeal. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution, as brought out in the testimony of its witnesses, are that the deceased Kamlesh, who was the sister of Raj Kumar PW7 and Rajesh PW9, was married about 12 years prior to the occurrence with one Daya Nand, the elder brother of the respondents. When Daya Nand was murdered around 1986, the deceased had contracted a Karewa marriage with Siri Bhagwan respondent. Unfortunately, the couple could not pull on together with the result that Kamlesh deceased started residing in a separate house. A panchayat headed by Balbir Singh Sarpanch PW6 had after looking into the dispute between Kamlesh and Siri Bhagwan directed the latter to pay an amount of Rs. 200/- per month as maintenance to Kamlesh. This decision, it appears, was not complied with, with the result that proceedings under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code were initiated by the deceased against her husband, in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat on 27.7.1990. That case was fixed on 23.10.1992 for hearing. On 19.10.1992 Raj Kumar PW7 had come to village Lath to enquire about the welfare of his sister. He reached the residence of Kamlesh in the evening and after taking dinner was informed by her that Sat Narain, Siri Bhagwan and their cousin Satbir had asked her to withdraw the proceedings under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code, otherwise she would be done to death, whereupon Raj Kumar had told her that he would apprise his father about this fact after reaching village Harsana and everything would be settled. During the night, when Raj Kumar was sleeping in the court-yard and Kamlesh was sleeping in the kotha, Raj Kumar woke up at about mid-night on hearing the shrieks of Kamlesh. The room was bolted from inside and on seeing through the window, he found that Satbir had caught the legs, Siri Bhagwan had caught the hands of Kamlesh whereas Sat Narain was throttling her. The room was bolted from inside and on seeing through the window, he found that Satbir had caught the legs, Siri Bhagwan had caught the hands of Kamlesh whereas Sat Narain was throttling her. Shrieks of Kamlesh disappeared soon and on hearing the alarm raised by Raj Kumar, Sat Narain, Siri Bhagwan and Satbir ran away from the rear gate of the house. Raj Kumar entered from the back gate and found that the salwar worn by Kamlesh had been removed and she was lying dead. It appeared that before killing her, she had been subjected to rape also by the respondents and Satbir. After closing the gate of the house, Raj Kumar left for Harsana to inform his family members about the incident. 4. On reaching his village Harsana, Raj Kumar PW7 found that his father Hari Singh had gone to Sonepat to meet his maternal uncle. Raj Kumar and his brother Rajesh PW9 then came to Sonepat and from there they had proceeded to village Lath along with their father. After reaching Lath, Raj Kumar PW7 left his father and brother Rajesh at the spot and proceeded to the Police Station, Gohana where he lodged F.I.R. No. 343 dated 20.10.1992 Ex.PE with regard to the incident at 2.30 P.M. under Sections 302, 376 and 449 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code The S.H.O. after registering the F.I.R. had accompanied Raj Kumar PW7 to the spot and prepared rough site plan Ex.PL depicting the place of the occurrence. Photographs were also taken at the spot. The inquest proceedings Ex.PM were also conducted. A blood-stained bed sheet placed on the cot of Kamlesh deceased was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PA. The dead body was also sent through A.S.I. Sube Singh PW1 to the hospital for post mortem examination. Dr. B.K. Gupta PW8 conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Kamlesh at 9 A.M. on 21.10.1992 and after detailing six injuries found on the person of the deceased opined that the cause of death was asphyxia on account of throttling which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Dr. B.K. Gupta PW8 conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Kamlesh at 9 A.M. on 21.10.1992 and after detailing six injuries found on the person of the deceased opined that the cause of death was asphyxia on account of throttling which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The dead body was then handed over to the relatives and a sealed packet containing the clothes worn by the deceased, glass slides and sealed vial containing swabs were handed over to the police and taken into possession by ASI Sube Singh through recovery memo Ex. PB. These articles were deposited in the Mal Khana with M.H.C. Pawan Kumar. Sat Narain was arrested on 21.10.1992 and on 22.10.1992 he was examined medico-legally and found fit to perform sexual intercourse. Siri Bhagwan in turn was arrested on 19.11.1992. He was medico-legally examined and found fit to perform sexual intercourse. The Forensic Science Laboratory on examination of the clothes and slides found human semen. On completion of investigation, the challan was put in Court against the respondents under Sections 302, 449 and 120-B Indian Penal Code On going through the papers sent up for trial, the Illaqa Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 5. On going through the papers sent up for trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat framed charges under Sections 120-B, 302 and 449 Indian Penal Code and when accused pleaded not guilty to the charges, prosecution was called upon to examine its witnesses. 6. To bring home the charge, prosecution examined ASI Sube Singh PW1, Dr. C.D. Sharma PW2, Constable Jasbir Singh PW3, Constable Kaptan Singh PW4, Sat Narain PW5, Balbir Singh PW6, Raj Kumar PW7, Dr. B.K. Gupta PW8, Rajesh PW9, ASI Suraj Mal PW10 and Inspector Ram Phal PW11 and tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.PH of Pawan Kumar MHC and gave up other witnesses cited as unnecessary. 7. When examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code the respondents denied their guilt and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The assertion that karewa marriage had been performed between Kamlesh and Sat Narain was denied. It was asserted that after the death of their father Kanshi Ram, they had handed over the ornaments of the family to the father of Kamlesh for keeping them in safe custody and later on he refused to return the same. The assertion that karewa marriage had been performed between Kamlesh and Sat Narain was denied. It was asserted that after the death of their father Kanshi Ram, they had handed over the ornaments of the family to the father of Kamlesh for keeping them in safe custody and later on he refused to return the same. Siri Bhagwan respondent took the same stand and in addition asserted that on the day of incident he was on duty in Vishakhapatnam. In their defence, respondents examined Fateh Singh Chowkidar, who had stated that he had come to know about the murder of Kamlesh at 6 A.M. and several other persons had assembled outside her house. He had also stated that the police was called by Sat Narain respondent and the witness further stated that the police had reached the spot at 8 A.M. and the family members from the parental side of Kamlesh had also come at that time. He also asserted that Kamlesh was residing in a separate house for the last about 7 years and she was leading an unchaste life. 8. After hearing arguments and perusing records, the trial Court acquitted the respondents. Hence, this appeal. 9. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant-State sought to challenge the view taken by the trial Court primarily on the ground that it has failed to appreciate the testimony of Raj Kumar PW7, who had witnessed the incident in which Kamlesh had lost her life. It was submitted that though the witness was related to the deceased yet his presence is probable and as nothing had been brought out in cross-examination to discredit his testimony, therefore, the conclusion drawn by the Court below cannot be sustained. 10. This argument is based on the principle enunciated in Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which states that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for proof of any fact. The Apex Court in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 Supreme Court 614, while dilating upon the said principle observed as under :- "(1) As a general rule, a Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character. The Apex Court in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 Supreme Court 614, while dilating upon the said principle observed as under :- "(1) As a general rule, a Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character. (2) Unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute, Courts should not insist on corroboration except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as a rule of prudence, that corroboration should be insisted upon, for example, in the case of a child witness, or of a witness whose evidence is that of an accomplice or of an analogous character. (3) Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary, must depend upon facts and circumstance of each case and no general rule can be laid down in a matter like this and much depends upon the judicial discretion of the Judge before whom the case comes." 11. The Apex Court had also reiterated this principles in Ramrathan and others v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 424. 12. It is in the light of this principle that the testimony of Raj Kumar PW7 has to be examined. The deposition of the witness regarding the marriage of Kamlesh with Daya Nand, elder brother of Sat Narain and Siri Bhawan respondents; that after Daya Nand was murdered in the year 1986 she had contracted a Karewa marriage with Siri Bhagwan; that on account of the strained relations between Siri Bhagwan and Kamlesh, she had set up in a separate house; and that Kamlesh had moved an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was pending in the Court at Sonepat are not disputed. The improbability of his presence at the residence of Kamlesh in village Lath on the night intervening 19th and 20th October, 1992; his conduct after the alleged incident; his failure to inform the local residents of village Lath about the incident for seeking their assistance; his leaving the deadbody unguarded for more than 12 hours; the delay with which the F.I.R. was registered and the fact that two of the persons, who are alleged to have participated in the crime were proved to be not present in village Lath on the date of occurrence, were taken into consideration by the trial Court for rejecting the testimony of Raj Kumar PW7. As the story of the prosecution unfolds itself in the statement of this witness, who is stated to be working in the Courts at Sonepat is that he had, on the night of 19th of October, 1992, decided to visit his elder sister Kamlesh in village Lath, which is about 15 to 16 Kilometers from Sonepat. On reaching there, he had been told by Kamlesh that the respondents had threatened her that she would be done to death in case she did not withdraw her application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance, which had been filed by her when the maintenance of Rs. 200/- per month fixed by the Panchayat and confirmed by Balbir Singh PW6 was not being paid. After taking his meals, he had retired for the night and gone to sleep on a cot, which was placed outside the room where Kamlesh was to sleep. Kamlesh had apparently bolted the door and in the middle of the night, the witness had woken up by her shrieks and on peeping in from the window, he had seen that while Satbir Singh was catching her from the legs and Siri Bhagwan was catching her from her hands and Sat Narain was throttling her. Raj Kumar had gone out of the house in order to attract the attention of the neighbours and when no one responded had come back to the room where his sister was being assaulted. In the meantime the accused had made good their escape. Raj Kumar on return found that the Salwar of his sister had been removed by the assailants and she was dead. He suspected that he had been raped. In the meantime the accused had made good their escape. Raj Kumar on return found that the Salwar of his sister had been removed by the assailants and she was dead. He suspected that he had been raped. After closing the door from outside he left to village Harsana Kalan to inform the members of his family and he eventually returned to village Lath along with his grand parents and after leaving them at the spot he had gone to lodge the report at Police Station, Gohana, where the F.I.R. was ultimately registered at 2.30 P.M. on 20.10.1992. The conduct of the witness after the incident is unexplainable for his immediate reaction would have been to gather the residents of village Lath for taking steps to protect the dead body of Kamlesh before leaving for his village. He even did not care to inform Balbir Singh PW6 Sarpanch, who, according to the prosecution, was already seized of the hostilities between Kamlesh and her husband and had intervened in the matter. The version of the prosecution of his having taken over 12 hours to return to the village on a cycle and bring back his relatives to village Lath at 1.20 P.M., as has been brought out in the cross-examination of Sat Narain PW5, who after admitting that the news about the death of Kamlesh had reached him early in the morning, explains the delay in leaving for village Lath until 10.00 A.M. to the effect that they were busy in constructing the roof of the Chopal is unconvincing. The delay in the lodging of the FIR in these circumstances is hardly convincing. The story of the witness having slept outside in the compound is belied by the testimony of Inspector Ram Phal PW11, the Investigating Officer, who on reaching the spot found that bed on which Raj Kumar was stated to have slept for the night, standing beside the wall instead of the place where he is stated to have left it after the occurrence. The Investigating Officers testimony also belies the position taken by Raj Kumar that an electric lamp that burning at the time of the occurrence had not been switched off inasmuch as though no other person had evidently visited the place of occurrence after the incident, the police officer had found the electric bulb switched off. 13. The Investigating Officers testimony also belies the position taken by Raj Kumar that an electric lamp that burning at the time of the occurrence had not been switched off inasmuch as though no other person had evidently visited the place of occurrence after the incident, the police officer had found the electric bulb switched off. 13. The fact that Satbir respondent had reported for duty at Siliguri at 1200 Hrs. on 20th of October, 1992 was relied upon by the trial Court to negative the possibility of his having participated in the occurrence. In the case of Siri Bhagwan respondent, the Commandant of the CISF had issued a certificate showing that he was present with his Unit in Visakhapatnam between 15.10.1992 and 19.11.1992, the date when he was arrested in the case, which fact was also taken into consideration by the trial Court for rejecting the possibility of his having participated in the occurrence. The defence had examined Fateh in as DW 1 to prove the fact that Sat Narain accused had informed the police about the incident at about 8.00 A.M. as also that the paternal side of Kamleshs family had reached there at that time. Taking all these circumstances into consideration the trial Court had rejected the testimony of Raj Kumar PW7 and given the benefit of doubt to the respondents. 14. After going through the testimony of the witnesses produced during the trial and the other material on the record, we are convinced that the view taken by the Court below can by no stretch of imagination be termed as perverse. While arriving at the conclusion, the trial Court had taken into consideration the entire evidence, which was brought on the record. The scope in appeal against acquittal is well settled and restricts the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere only in cases where the view is palpably wrong and, therefore, unsustainable. It is not permissible for this Court to reverse a finding merely because if it had the opportunity of appreciating the same as the Court of original jurisdiction, it might have come to a different view. This is not so in the present case. As already indicated above, the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court do not call for any interference in appeal. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.